Government Should Ban Skinny Models To Curb Anorexia, Say Researchers

smoothjazz writes "Governments are justified to prevent very skinny models from walking the catwalk and ban photographs and advertisements suggesting that extreme thinness is attractive, according to a group of researchers who found that social and cultural environment influences on young women is largely responsible for the spread of chronic eating disorder."

Comments

Ban idiotic research first

[sideslash]

Oh wait, researchers have freedom of speech. Come to think of it, so do marketing firms.

Re:Ban idiotic research first

[ceoyoyo]

Freedom of speech is limited in all kinds of ways. False advertising for example. Or making health claims. Controls on what you can and can't do in ads aren't new.

Re:Ban idiotic research first

[amRadioHed]

Obesity is unrelated to eating disorders. People with eating disorders have an unrealistic ideas about body size and so they will starve themselves far beyond any healthy or attractive level of thinness. For these people wanting to be thin is indeed a problem.

Re:Ban idiotic research first

[PopeRatzo]

Wait until we have real universal health care.. then the anorexics health becomes everyones business...

It won't take that long. We've been told for decades by a certain segment of the population that womens' reproductive organs are "everyones business".

And in the past few weeks, it appears that the way women can and cannot use their own health insurance is "everyones business".

It doesn't have anything to do with "real universal health care". No, when it comes to making private stuff "everyones business" we've been well on the way for at least 30 years.

Personally, I have a moral objection to my insurance premiums going to pay for the high blood pressure medicine and angioplasties and heart diseases and colon cancers of all the people who just have to have that second triple quarter-pounder with extra cheese and mega-sized french fries until they need a scooter get around Wal-Mart to buy their extra plus-size "Big and Tall" size 48 sweat pants (with "extra-full cut" to accommodate that third slab of flab that hangs down to their knees. But I promise to lay off those morbidly obese gluttons and even chip in a few bucks for their gargantuan medical bills if those disgustingly fat slobs just promise to let a woman's health stay between herself and her husband and her doctor and her insurance company and not call her a "slut" and a "prostitute" just because her doctor has responded to her desire not to have to get pregnant every time she has sex.

I mean, goddamn, if my wife had to get pregnant every time we had sex, I'd be knee-deep in brilliant, talented, attractive kids and I'd have to work until I'm 90 just to pay for their grad school and all their advanced degrees. Though it would be kind of cool to be the father of multiple Nobel Prize winners, I have decided to settle for just the one.

Re:Ban idiotic research first

[ceoyoyo]

Cigarette advertising is a good precedent - it's illegal on TV, radio and billboards in the US, and in may other media in other places. If a behaviour has been shown to be a serious public health hazard, and is encouraged by certain forms of media, that media has been banned in the past.

Re:Ban idiotic research first

[Dave Emami]

Cigarette ads on radio and television are illegal in the US. That's a direct precedent.

... and one which should be overturned yesterday, as it's a crystal-clear violation of the First Amendment. To rephrase what I said previously, the fact that government has gotten away with something already is no excuse for letting them do more of it.

If "it makes someone feel bad" is sufficient reason to infringe on peoples' freedoms, then what's next? Enact a law requiring high school athletes and cheerleaders to date the campus nerds?

I think you've got some problems with your analogy there (but it's great rhetoric, hey?). The situation we're considering is one where some advertising is shown to promote behaviours that are a public health problem.

With the exception of communicable disease or similar physical hazards -- things that can harm someone by contact or proximity -- there is no such thing as "public health." You're talking about something that people mentally react to, not a person spreading their typhoid germs around. Furthermore, "shown to promote behaviours" is just a fancier way of saying "make someone feel bad."

So going with your analogy, try putting an ad that promotes beating up nerds on TV. Or one that shows nerds cutting themselves because they're social outcasts.

If someone actually wants to do that, sure. That's their right. I stand with Voltaire on this issue. And I say that as a glasses-wearing program-writing member of the high-school wargamers (read: AD&D) club who was occasionally on the receiving end of unkind treatment by campus jocks and other nitwits.

Re:Ban idiotic research first

[misexistentialist]

Is it really too much to ask for you and your wife to pay for your own birth control? As a celibate slashdotter I resent having to help cover the cost of your biannual matings.

Re:Ban idiotic research first

[Farmer Tim]

celibate slashdotter

One of these words is redundant.

Re:Ban idiotic research first

[uncqual]

Is any form of free speech harmless?

Religious free speech harms many by advocating positions that cause people to not act in their best interests. This includes such activities as PRAYING for something to help them rather than spending that time DOING something to help themselves (esp. when they do something like eschew doctors and rely on religion to cure their cancer resulting in their unnecessary early demise and possibly significantly more pain in their final days than necessary).

Or should political speech encouraging or protesting gun control (each side claims the outcome the other side promotes harms people) be banned?

Should people be banned from such religious or political speech or required to somehow "take credit" (i.e., pay for the damage they cause - as anything else isn't really "taking credit" if they continue to spout such nonsense).

The fact it causes "harm" just isn't sufficient reason to ban speech IMHO.

It's True

[crow_t_robot]

Banning skinny models definitely would help fix the problem. I'm normally against such type of regulation but when the common person is blasted in the face by constant advertising in every form imaginable 24/7 then i tend to fall on the side of regulation.

It's not like the average person can moderate the amount of advertising that rapes their eyeballs and subconcious every day.

Re:It's True

[__aaltlg1547]

Yet most of us are fat. Anybody else see a contradiction?

Re:It's True

[bhagwad]

But the average person has the discretion to decide whether to listen to the advertising or not.

Re:It's True

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really.
Advertising is designed to exploit various characteristics of our brain that cause us to make unconscious decisions because of the advertising.

Re:It's True

[QuasiSteve]

No, not really.

Although scientists whose area of expertise is in this area would have to show real data either confirming my gut feeling or disproving it (and I'll then blame the fish I had earlier)., I would guess that...

When you're young and you're exposed to the imagery of 'ideals' you might try to actually reach those ideals. However, if you fail - and most of us do; even if you do make it to the ideal, a month later you may have bounced right back up and then some - that may make you sad at best and downright depressed at worst.

The sadness/depression is, in turn, fought using - among other - comfort foods (It's no coincidence that a lot of people think that eating a bucket of ice cream is a great way to do away with the blues).

But eating comfort foods is rarely health and in fact is likely to lead you to further weight gain.. which depresses you more, etc.

At some point, though, you stop really caring. You've realized that you are overweight, and that while you have fleeting moments of wanting to do something about it, there's no real pressure to do so any more as you are now one of the millions of overweight adults who are accepted just fine by society as long as you don't go overboard in obesity (at which point you might become the subject of internet ridicule for a day, after which life goes on).
In fact, once you reach that point, you realize that the superskinny are far more often pointed out in a negative way than the overweight (think Angelina Jolie).

As such, if these distorted 'ideals' can be kept away from kids, then perhaps that would effect change. However, I don't think legislation is the answer. How would you actually legislate this anyway? The change has to come from within the fashion/magazine industry itself.

However, as some in that industry have already suggested that Kate Upton (google, judge for yourself) is too 'curvy' (read: fat) for magazine covers, I doubt that change is coming anytime soon.

Isn't it clear by now?

[telekon]

Fat models, skinny controllers, dumb views...

Oh, wait, are we not talking about code all of a sudden? Okay, in that case, dumb, skinny models, and no fat chicks.

In fact, forget I was here.

It's living art.

[earls]

The social manifestation of the persecution of beauty.

Actuarially, no.

[fyngyrz]

You know, the thing about insurance of groups, which is essentially a statistical undertaking, is that there are always outliers in both directions, and they are accounted for. There are insured people who never go to the doctor or need medical treatment. And there are insured people who go every time someone *else* sniffles. Over a large population, it'll balance out just fine.

Whenever someone starts sniveling about the over-users, take a moment to remind them of me, someone who has been well insured for decades and hasn't *ever* made a health insurance claim -- I seem to have an immune system like a Sherman tank. So far, lol. 55 and counting, though, not too bad.

Re:Actuarially, no.

[icebike]

Outliers in both directions, but in the present case, not to the same extent.

The outliers in weight clearly favor the heavy side, and its a far tougher nut to crack that the anorexic who looked at a magazine. I suggest the researchers come up with a believable way to control the tendency towards overweight by changing pictures in a magazine. Then they would have something of true value.

One could even make the case that removing the skinny side of normal from the cultural images may push the tendency towards acceptance of more obesity. This would have a far greater effect on health care costs than anorexia.

One half of one percent of women go thru a period of anorexia. Of these only 5 – 10% die of their disorder within 10 years. Yet 35.7% of Americans suffer from obesity. Medical costs for obesity on average were $1,429 higher per person per year.

So the outliers aren't significant on the skinny side, but they are devastating on the fat side.

Re:Actuarially, no.

[jhoegl]

The way I see it, all people are societies responsibility.
You want to harp on someone because they are too skinny, too fat, have too many pits in their face, dont have a square jaw, arent up to your standards?
Fine, but you get to pay for their psychotherapy, or alternate cause because therapy is not covered in our society.
People wonder why school shootings, beatings, rapes, etc. keep happening to our children. But what they should do is look in the mirror and think back at all the harm they have caused. Words dont hurt? Perhaps not right away, but over time... your attitude adds up and costs society.
If you dont reap what you sew, too bad. Society must be held accountable from now on for its own actions.

Re:Actuarially, no.

[fyngyrz]

Yes, remind them of the guy that only needs catastrophic coverage

No. Look, the only way you can KNOW you "only" need catastrophic coverage is on the day you die and you can sum up your ENTIRE medical history. And then it's too late. I *need* medical insurance because I *may* get ill. Just because I've not *been* ill, doesn't mean that I won't *get* ill. That's what insurance is: trading some wealth today against the possibility something goes awry tomorrow. People who only get catastrophic coverage don't understand probability. But overall, across the pool, there WILL be people who are very healthy overall. The problem the individual faces is that you can't know if that's you or not until it's too late.

Look, we're all better off if the fewest number of people are sick and/or suffering. Just bite the bullet and admit it. Just as an educated populace moves society forward, just as a good road system benefits everyone, including those who don't drive on it, so does a healthy society benefit us all. It's one of those things that is really pretty obvious when you really think about it.

Re:Actuarially, no.

[Rockoon]

The way I see it, all people are societies responsibility.

..and thus, your health is everyones business.

Smoker? Outlawed.
Fatty foods? Outlawed.
Skinny Models? Outlawed.
...

The thing is that you will never see the end of the push for these laws because some people truly believe that individuals are societies responsibility. They only want to help. They are believers. You can't deter believers. Its for your own good.

Re:Actuarially, no.

[Smauler]

Of course people are society's responsibilty. I live in the UK, and I do like the NHS.

Some people I know use the NHS as emotional support. These people are not ill, either mentally, or physically. They just like seeing their doctor every so often.

Some people I know use the NHS every time they get a cold - literally. The doctor tells them to piss off (not in so many words, but I wish he would), and they go home happy.

When I tell these people that that's where your tax is going, they don't get it. When I tell them that's where my tax is going, they still don't get it.

The people who are ill are not the the problem. The people who are fine and think they can use a "free" service as much as they like are.

Re:Actuarially, no.

[Rockoon]

I *need* medical insurance because I *may* get ill.

No, thats not why you need health insurance. You need health insurance because you cannot afford the out of pocket expenses of some illnesses. You seem to have a warped view of the role health insurance plays in society.

Do you have $5000 in the bank? If so, then why do you need coverage for anything that will cost under $5000? The fact is that if you have $5000 in the bank then you do not. Thats why there exists catastrophic health insurance plans.. its for actual smart people that actually know what health insurance is actually for.

You know what the United States health insurance reform mainly did? It made catastrophic coverage "not enough" .. its going to be illegal to play it smart.

Re:Actuarially, no.

[Smauler]

Consider: If you're 150 pounds overweight, it's likely to cut 20 years off of your life. If you'[re 150 pounds underweight, you're probably already dead

No shit, sherlock.

I personally don't think the problem is with the skinny models, it's with the photoshopping that goes on in the industry. It's absurd - look at this for example - scroll down a page to first photo..

I mean, she was skinny to begin with... but attractive - with the photoshop, she's just odd looking. And that's what they're aiming for.

Re:Actuarially, no.

[MightyYar]

And, in terms of looks, consider that Marilyn Munroe would never get past the reception desk of most talent agencies today

Her chunkiness has been exaggerated. First, remember that when she died she was 36 - she had already moved from modeling to movies by age 20, so those pictures of Marilyn that you see in the JFK era are when she was well past the age that she walked past the reception desk!

I'm hardly a Marilyn fanatic, but I've seen enough of her movies to know that she's all over the place weight-wise, and in the early 50s you find pictures like this rack-o-ribs that show her looking rather emaciated.

Re:Actuarially, no.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Then again, it is still better than a government run system, as I at least have choices of carriers and coverage.

I'll just keep using the Swedish *evil* government-run *evil* healthcare system that puts an affordable clinic and pharmacy in nearly every borough of Stockholm, thanks.

Who needs a false "choice" amongst "carriers" (= middle-men/profiteers) when I've already got a better deal than any US insurance company ever has given or is ever going to give me?

Re:Actuarially, no.

[donscarletti]

Then again, it is still better than a government run system, as I at least have choices of carriers and coverage.

UK, Australia, NZ, Canada all have some degree of government run healthcare systems, two of those countries have lower tax rates than the US, the other two have tax rates not much higher meaning you still have money left to buy private health insurance, it costs much less and it still gives you your choice of doctor and hospital. Government healthcare is just a service, it doesn't cost all your money and you don't have to use it if you want a different treatment. Plus, if the government is not willing to pay for elective surgery, you can still go to its hospital as a private patient and it's still way cheaper since you just have to pay a surgeon their hourly rate. Oh, and you can buy medicine from a regular store for the same price that HMOs pay since the government collectively bargains.

Re:Good luck, because...

[Beardo the Bearded]

Okay.

I've got an eight-year-old girl. Every day I tell her that she's smart and strong and brave and beautiful, and that I love her, and that I'm proud of her. We've told her how they use computers to make models look different than in real life. (The Fotoshop by Adobé ad is great)

Yet for all the work we do to tell her how incredible and awesome she is, there's a constant barrage of ads screaming that she's ugly and dumb and girls are wimpy.

Music

[internettoughguy]

The problem is not that these body images are harmful, but that girls are trained to think that their appearance is their most important attribute.

This is not improving, this shallow culture is being promoted to men and boys as well, perhaps in order to stave off charges of sexism, but more likely it's just a realisation within these cosmetic and fashion industries that they are missing out on a potential market.

Why is this on Slashdot?

[pz]

Why is this article here?

Does it include neato new technology?

Does it review some new CPU or video card?

Does it discuss a new or old computer game?

Does it include high-energy physics or cosmology?

Does it include something about programming languages?

Does it include cryptography or security breaches?

Does it include anything at all about computers?

Hell, does it talk about Bitcoin?

Might as well just post scans from the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue that's out right now.

Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons?

[Dr_Barnowl]

Or they may be skinny because they couldn't afford health insurance and broke a limb in a mugging. Oh shoot, medical bills in the $12,000 region. I guess they can't afford to feed themselves anymore.

Universal healthcare is not just the mark of a civilized society, it's cheaper than commercial healthcare, because you don't have to pay for all those claims adjusters and billing administrators.

Nixon was opposed to the idea, by the way. He really liked the idea of HMOs though.

Re:Good luck, because...

[JSG]

... so who is winning?

You say what you do and you say what ads do but no conclusion unless we have to take the last phrase of your comment as you feel that's what she thinks.

I feel your pain but apparently parents have been worried for millennia about external influences on their children. If ads is the worst you've got then that's perhaps not too bad. You might like to compare your worries with parents in say the Syrian city of Homs.

Wait until she's around 12-15. You'll really have worries then as she becomes rapidly more sophisticated and "teen" ...

Best of luck (OK - enjoy every moment, even when you are shitting yourself with worry)

Cheers
Jon

Anorexic spouse - this is only part of it

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife is anorexic. She's stable, and she's become a successful practicing MD. Understanding the problem doesn't cure it.

She grew up in a home with two half-sisters under a frequently single mother who went through many marriages. Her (now also anorexic) mother has career success, ridiculously low self esteem, and she married at least two physically abusive men. The worst of them was a churchgoing man who physically abused all his daughters/stepdaughters and repeatedly raped his own daughter (thankfully my wife did not endure that). He hid it from his wife/my mother-in-law and everyone else (except the girls) for several years. When my mother-in-law finally understood it was happening, she divorced him as soon as she felt she could without physical abuse as a repercussion. I don't think that was right away. And because of fear, he was never reported or punished. I don't think he even quit attending church.

My wife had no control of her life in her childhood. She could control her appearance. She became anorexic to give fulfill her need for a sense of control in her life.

Banning the ads would help reduce the draw of that manifestation of the need for control. But the root problem is very commonly associated with domestic abuse and/or unhealthy childhoods like the one my wife grew up in.

Are they serious?

[pclminion]

Let's restrict freedom of speech in order to solve social problems. Sure buddy, whatever. If we're going to do that, let's start with a few other things first, such as Fred Phelps and the KKK. Any American who thinks this is a good idea, please step out back and shoot yourself, thanks.

Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons?

[icebike]

For example, they may be skinny because the government is spending on healthcare rather than spending on hunger.

Ah, no. Just No.

Anorexia is a mental illnesses, not a poverty issue.

Poor people in the USA aren't wasting away from lack of food.
The majority of them are too fat, because they can only afford cheap fattening foods, and filling a belly of a hungry child is more important than filling it with a weight conscious diet.

This has NOTHING to do with Anorexia which hunger or poverty.

Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons?

[CrackedButter]

Where I live that theory is a fact, even with commercial healthcare costing only $50 a month. I live in the UK, that figure is through BUPA. I probably pay $600 dollars roughly in National Insurance contributions. I just finished an MA and now work part time. I paid even less during Uni, did you?

As to the second part of your post, the Scandinavians prove you wrong on the corruption front. Norway especially, is considered the least corrupted nation on the planet, followed closely by her neighbours and New Zealand.

Give me more government I say (when it's good), lucky the majority of the best ones are in Europe or part of the Commonwealth.

Re:Europeans

[grumbel]

Why is it that Euro cosmopolitans have this desire to have that "concentration camp" look.

The more skinny the models are, the more the design of the clothes stands out. If you have a curvy model that takes away the focus from the clothes and distorts the indented shape of the clothes.

Re:The government should ban

[InsertCleverUsername]

This blows all the mods I've made, but the shear ignorance here is killing me. People need to get past their misogynist thinking that anorexia just means being lean.

The reason curbing anorexia is a big deal is that it has "the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder" and it's a highly cultural phenomenon, extremely rare in societies before modern advertising. Even with treatment, the prognosis is death most of the time. This is an avoidable danger, like prohibiting the glorification of drugs in kids' shows.

Really... How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?

Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons?

[Ironhandx]

Its not a fucking theory you nitwit.

Canada has a single payer government system. Its a PROVEN PROCESS.

Canadians live longer than Americans, by something like 3-4 years now. Yes the outlier cases of super specialized treatment send people from here south of the border into the US, however that is largely because we just don't have the population to support services for the things that affect 1 in 100,000 people and are pretty damned expensive.

1 in 100,000 people in Canada is 300 people.

1 in 100,000 people in the US is 3000 people.

Now why don't we play with some grade 2 math and guess which country has better centralized care for that sort of condition?

The funny part of it all is that Americans are coming to Canada for health care for some issues. With the population difference that should in no way happen.

Re:Europeans

[R3d M3rcury]

Actually, as I understand it, it doesn't necessarily have to do with the "beauty" of the models, it has to do with how the shape of a skinny person shows off the clothing. Basically, they want walking coat-hangers.

This is a problem in the US???

[cayenne8]

Frankly, considering that the majority of women I see are obese, often morbidly so....is this really a problem with the skinny models?!?!

No, men aren't off the line either...but from looking on a daily basis at typical people in the US any time I go out.....skinny models causing anorexia is NOT a problem....I can't remember the last time I saw anyone, particularly a chick that looked anywhere or any way too skinny....

Hell, its hard to find anyone out there that looks anywhere close to 'fit'....

I was that way...at least I'm trying with better diet, proper portions...and yes...exercise.

Re:This is a problem in the US???

[benjamindees]

The study was only done in Europe.

So, as a simple and immediate solution to this problem, we only need to send half of obese American women to Europe in exchange for thin European women.

Re:This is a problem in the US???

[tnk1]

So, as a simple and immediate solution to this problem, we only need to send half of obese American women to Europe in exchange for thin European women.

APPROVED!

Re:This is a problem in the US???

[Colonel Korn]

Several hundred thousand women in the United States suffer from anorexia and ~20% of them will die of anorexia-related symptoms. Being 30 pounds underweight is a lot worse than being 30 pounds overweight, or even 100 pounds overweight. Comprehensive anorexia treatment has rather low success rates and costs around $10k/month, and your health insurance premiums are funding it.

Re:This is a problem in the US???

[jd2112]

So, as a simple and immediate solution to this problem, we only need to send half of obese American women to Europe in exchange for thin European women.

APPROVED!

As a result Europe has declared war on the US. Except the Greeks, who are in even worse financial shape than the US. France surrendered before the declaration of war was formally declared.

Re:This is a problem in the US???

[kick6]

Several hundred thousand women in the United States suffer from anorexia and ~20% of them will die of anorexia-related symptoms. Being 30 pounds underweight is a lot worse than being 30 pounds overweight, or even 100 pounds overweight. Comprehensive anorexia treatment has rather low success rates and costs around $10k/month, and your health insurance premiums are funding it.

Approximately 75 million women in the US are overweight. Which do you think is a bigger problem?

Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons?

[sideslash]

Give me more government I say (when it's good)

That's the real trick, isn't it? If the "more government" turns out to be bad, you typically don't have opportunity to "give it back". :p

Hvae you ever lived under a govt-run system?

[zooblethorpe]

...it is still better than a government run system, as I at least have choices of carriers and coverage.

Have you ever lived under a government-run healthcare system?

I'm from the US, and I've lived in Japan for years at a stretch. In Virginia, Kaiser Permanente listened to my wife's explanation of her symptoms (chronic sinusitis, excessive post-nasal-drip, resulting digestive issues, among other issues) and decided that the trouble in her gut was actually evidence that she needed her ovaries removed. Um, no.

In Tokyo, the local hospital (as part of the government-run healthcare system) listened to her symptoms, and then also to her lungs, and said "hey, you have light asthma -- here's how you manage it." Problems (mostly) solved.

Just because a healthcare system is government run doesn't mean that it's necessarily bad. Just because a healthcare system is left to run on market dynamics and choices doesn't mean that it's necessarily better.

FWIW, the opposite is also true -- we've also experienced crappy medical care in Japan, and good care in the US. Ultimately, a lot of it comes down to the quality of the doctors themselves.

Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons?

[toadlife]

Three that I know off the top of my head:

Cost per capita (The U.S spends on average, double what Western nations with socialized systems spend)
Infant mortality rate (The U.S. ranks 34, right behind Cuba)
Life expectancy (The U.S. is again in the 30s and again behind communist Cuba)

Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons?

[Ironhandx]

Many people anecdotally agree. Your hospitals in the US are sometimes more lavish than hotels. Who the hell isn't going to say the care is better there?

In canada you get what you need to live. Which is the important bit. The living.

The climate is REALLY fucking reaching because we have a much harsher climate and have many many more people per capita die to exposure than you do.

The demographics and lifestyles are very very very similar. Go to Ontario, then go nearly anywhere in the northeastern US. You can't really tell much difference.

I already mentioned that some Canadians go to the US for treatment, and thats already largely explained. A population that is over 10x ours has a larger need for rarer treatments, thus has more facilities better equipped to deal with it. Its generally a 4-6 hour or less flight to get there. Why would they open a specialized clinic for it here?

As far as correlation =/= causation, its a bullshit strawman in this case. Our lifestyles are slightly different because we are taught differently. Our health care, because its publicly funded, for the public good, deals a LOT in preventative treatment and education on how to avoid things.

Guess what? Preventative treatment and education are extremely effective and extremely cost effective. The fact that we're living longer while spending less than 1/5th of your per patient spending is plenty of evidence of that.

Our improved lifestyle is a direct result of these organizations. The school milk program, the Canada Food Guide that was released in the 60s and continues to this day... etc... all government funded, all related to or directly funded by our universal health care.

Try getting your fucking Insurance company to invest in education.

I apologize for being curt with you but I've had it with people like you touting the virtues of a system that is partially responsible for your country being on the verge of circling the drain for the last 5 years

You also fling communism around... communism isn't the answer, a socialist democracy on the other hand is fan-fucking-tastic. Ask us, or the Norwegians, or the Swedes... or any one of another dozen countries that are thriving in what are for america very troubled times, all thanks to our socialist systems.

I should also point out that at Americas most successful it was damned close to a socialist government anyways.

Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons?

[pla]

Like open heart surgeries etc?

Exactly like open heart surgeries.

Do you suppose the wealthiest Canadians needing a bypass put their name on the list and wait patiently... Or fly to Cleveland?

Do you suppose wealthy (elderly) Canadians in need of an organ transplant resign themselves to age-based rationing and just die quietly... Or pull a Steve Jobs and fly to Tennessee for a no-fuss, no-muss, no-waiting-list liver?

Or on the flip side of the equation, as a brilliant young surgeon, would you stay in Canada with its government-capped doctor's salaries... Or "defect" to your neighbor to the South where you can make 10x as much without the hassle of having to treat the masses of unwashed poor as a form of government-imposed forced charity?

You really aughtn't act so defensive about this - As I said, I do think you have the better public health care system, overall. At the upper end, though, of-the-wealthy, by-the-wealthy, and for-the-wealthy, sorry, the US has that market cornered. And I don't say that as a positive!

Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons?

[nbauman]

A couple points: (1) the two countries have radically different climates, demographics, lifestyles, etc,

That's not true. As David Himmelstein said, the differences between Boston and Toronto are less than the differences between Boston and Jackson, Mississippi.

(2) many people would disagree that Canada has better healthcare than the USA.

So what? They're wrong. The evidence says that the outcomes in Canada are at least as good. The costs are about half. That makes it better.

And you know what's another thing that's funny? A lot of Canadians come to the USA for treatment.

So what? The numbers are few. The Canadians have done studies to find out why. Most Canadians who go to the U.S. for health care have relatives in the U.S. that they want to stay with. For example, they will have a knee replacement or open heart surgery and stay with their children in Florida or New York while they're recovering.

For that matter, a lot of Americans come to Canada to buy their medicine, and more Americans them would buy medicine by mail from Canada if our lobbyist-funded government allowed it.

If Americans could get Canadian health care, at Canadian price, quality and service, it would be the most popular health care plan in the U.S.

Re:Way more are fat

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I think Spock would agree that you don't understand the gravity of the situation.

Universal healthcare and costs

[tlambert]

Universal healthcare is not just the mark of a civilized society, it's cheaper than commercial healthcare, because you don't have to pay for all those claims adjusters and billing administrators.

Actually they don't go away under the currently enacted-but-not-in-effect U.S. system. You are required to purchase insurance from an insurance company under the new system. The costs stay the same, or go up, since you can't opt out because of rising costs.

The U.S. system as enacted is a universal coverage system, not a universal healthcare system. We already have a universal healthcare system, it's just hideously expensive when uninsured people utilize it at a hospital emergency room.

The problems with the system that will be replacing the current system is that it's exactly the same as the current system in the most important respects:

o. You pay an insurance company for health insurance
o. The insurance company pays the doctor for your visit
o. The doctor pays a portion of the money back to the insurance company for malpractice insurance
o. The insurance company pays for use of equipment like MRI machines
o. The company that manufactures the MRI machines pays a protion to the insurance company for liability insurance
o. The hospital pays an inflated cost for the machines to cover the vendors liability insurance in the cost
o. The hospital pays the insurance company for liability insurance related to the machine
o. The hospital pays malpractice insure related to the machine ...looks like a Ponzi scheme to me. The only people who make out are the insurance companies, and they have incredible incentive to drive up costs at some multiplier of their desired margin. And that doesn't change under universal coverage.

If they gave us single payer and tort reform, that would be one thing, but this isn't it.

I'd really rather pay for food for someone than to line the pockets of an insurance company.

-- Terry

Re:What if they are skinny for other reasons?

[nbauman]

Or on the flip side of the equation, as a brilliant young surgeon, would you stay in Canada with its government-capped doctor's salaries... Or "defect" to your neighbor to the South where you can make 10x as much without the hassle of having to treat the masses of unwashed poor as a form of government-imposed forced charity?

I know a bit about that. I've talked to a lot of Canadian doctors, some of whom were good surgeons (the word "brilliant" is overused hype). Many of them went for training in the U.S. (just as many American doctors go for training in Canada).

Most of the best surgeons do want to stay in Canada. They like the idea of being able to treat their patients according to need, not according to whether they can pay for it. They feel that they got a free education, and they like the idea of giving something back to their country. They feel like they're part of their community. They like being Canadians, because, as Canadians say, "we care about each other." They like the idea of practicing scientifically-based medicine, which is very strong in Canada. They like the idea of contributing to medical research, publishing in American and international journals, and reporting their results at international conferences, which they do a lot.

When you talk about the "unwashed poor", you show that you really don't know what's going on. Canadian doctors (and most American doctors, for that matter) don't regard their patients as "unwashed poor." They regard them as people in need of care that they can help. Doctors often say that it is a "privilege" to practice medicine and help others.

Your fundamental problem is your ideological belief in the free market. It doesn't work in health care. Doctors get a comfortable salary, and for most of them it's enough. Greedy doctors give bad medical care. Financial incentives give bad medical care.

Keira Knightley

[SmallFurryCreature]

Keira Knightley is the actress from the Pirates of the Caribean with rather small breasts. For another role, there exists a rather famous comparison picture in which her breasts are photoshopped to be a couple of sizes bigger. It was done against her will, she agreed to some touching up but not to go from A to C.

Is she pretty? Your tastes might differ but a lot of people would say yes...

So... does this stop all the girls out there from worrying their tits are to small? Hell no. For that matter, most super models got modest chest sizes. Does that stop girls from worrying? No. So WHAT image from the media is telling girls that they need to have big tits? Not a famous movie star, not super models.

Yet the claim stands that thin fashion models influence how girls view their body but not the breast part? No, it is a load of bull.

Some people feel insecure about their image, they then find anything out there to justify themselves in feeling bad about it. For a rather extreme and dangerous example, how many black people claim they are kept down by discrimination when the most powerful man on the planet right now is black? Somehow the fact Obama got elected president of the US does not factor into the claim of racism.

Mind you, things are never black and white, there is racism and the media and society put a lot of expectations on how people should be. This isn't just looks, many a person keeps looking for the magical love where violins suddenly start playing. I have met people who really thought that when they became adults, there lifes would be like that in Friends and other sitcoms, sitting around all day drinking coffee with the occasional visit to work if it suited them. Reality? You want to be able to afford even a single coffee, you work so hard that all you want to do in the evening is sleep.

Does this matter? I don't know if the term loverboy is universally known but these are men who seduce young girls with money and a flash lifestype and then get them into prostitution. The girls affected really believe the movie lifestype. "He always got money" and "He always was ready to have a good time" never makes them question how the two combine. It doesn't matter in sitcoms so why should it in real life that a guy with no job has plenty of girls and all the free time in the world and a lot of spare cash?

People who aren't to smart use the media to justify their insecurities, neuroses and world views, and ignore the bits of media that don't match. Porn girls have big tits so big tits are the norm and all the porn with small tits, every single super model don't exist. In comedy, fat ugly women often have attractive wives... of course the BBC series Miranda doesn't count where a very tall and none to skinny rather plain woman has not one but TWO hunky guys interested in her. And gosh, she NEVER goes after men who are overweight or plain looking or, horror of horror, to short.

Media isn't realistic. Or rather it is but we tend to look only at the bits that offend us. Porn is young girls ignoring all the granny and MILF porn. Super stars have big tits except for the ones who don't.

If we start to censor the media to be realistic... then what about those of us who are naturally skinny? Who are just plain good looking? Should they be subjected to a media showing that only ugly people can be happy?

Silly? It isn't the fat chicks or plain looking ones who tend to suffer from insecurity, it is the pretty girls. After all, the fat chick might not get a lot of boys after her but the one who does is probably really interested in her, the person. Where as the pretty girl only gets the guys after her who see her as a trophy and the ordinary guys do not approach her. Being pretty is no guarantee for happiness. See the lives of many a movie actress ending in misery.

There are a lot of things wrong with ads but the biggest is that so many people take them to serious and lack the capacity to look further then their own insecurity at the real world. Believe on pretty people ca